This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

"proud" to be a Trotskyist? Is this facetious? Not knowing the history of neocons well yet I was surprised to come across him. Am I a Liberal overreacting? I honestly don't know; but it was from an American Conservative article. I just want this to be NPOV and in my experience most Americans might believe it is inconceivable to be a Pinky Lefty and a proud American. I saw his son on Jon Stewart and after reading his quote on truths his son is truly carrying the banner of a term I once equated with less respectable epithets. No big deal; just wondering. I would just like to understand the context in a transparent NPOV manner; I'm actually intrigued to learn more about this guy. Please correct me if I'm overreacting, I'm all too aware I might fit into some hippie stereotype here ;-) Khirad 08:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think Encounter was funded by the CIA. I might be remembering it incorrectly, but Kristol talks about it briefly towards the end of 'Neoconservatism'. In effect, I think he says that the only person who knew about the CIA connection was their Publisher? Something along those lines, anyway. I'll see if I can find the passage again. Edders 10:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Encounter's editor, poet Stephen Spender, resigned when details of the CIA's financing of the magazine came out in 1967. Spender said that he wasn't aware of the payments and the CIA's involvement caused a major scandal at the time, deeply embarrassing some of the West's leading public intellectuals. Godzilla Awoken 17:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Kristol was aware of the funding, that's still somewhat up for grabs. Intangible2.0 02:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's incomplete to leave out a brief mention of the expulsion of Max Shachtman's faction from the Socialist Workers Party (US). Since Kristol's brief stint in the SWP (US) is brought up, and since the major fascination with Kristol today is that he was once a member of the Trotskyist party, completion of narrative should necessitate a brief mentioning that "Kristol was a supporter of Max Shachtman's faction in the SWP which Trotsky expelled in 1940." Otherwise you simply leave things hanging in the air by not mentioning this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.164.139 (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The second quotation in the "Quotations" section is certainly not notable enough to be included in this article, nor does it reflect a a broad enough theme in Kristol's neoconservative philosophy to warrant being included. I think whoever added this quote simply wanted to reinforce the now widespread notion that Neoconservatism is simply a disguise for pro-Israel sentiment or that all Neoconservatives are Jewish. Support for Israel is certainly important to many Neoconservatives, but attempting to reduce the entire philosophy to a kind of Jewish, pro-Israel conspiracy is not only erroneous but could be construed as anti-Semitic. I recommend the quote be deleted immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.14.54 (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."

It is, I think, a profoundly important part of neoconservative philosophy, and if the whole 'quotations' section is going to disappear, it should be incorporated into the 'ideas' section somehow. 24.17.178.36 (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being thick here, but this sentence from the article doesn't make sense to me: "As a former Trotskyist, Irving was indeed himself mugged by the "reality" of conservative philosophy and enfolded leftist policies such as a lack of objection to welfare programs, international "revolution" through nation-building/militarily imposed "democracy" and application of Fabian Socialism/Keynesianism coupled with a socially conservative viewpoint." Can anyone make heads or tails of it? What does the author mean by "enfolded" mean in this context? AEIMcM (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree; this sentence is incoherent. It seems to build on the "mugged by reality" quip that precedes it, but its syntax is a mess. I'm deleting. — ℜob C.aliasALAROB 14:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)